Oh I get it, only Democrats helped end segregation and supported civil rights huh? What does the record show?I think I'll check the history of who voted for and against it before I act like a sheep and swallow this cute political statement of Mr. O'Donnell as fact.

No Democrats opposed civil rights or opposed desegregating? What does the record show?

Is he arguing that liberal and Democrat are synonymous? Are there no liberal Republicans?

Oh I get it, only Democrats helped end segregation and supported civil rights huh? What does the record show?I think I'll check the history of who voted for and against it before I act like a sheep and swallow this cute political statement of Mr. O'Donnell as fact.

No Democrats opposed civil rights or opposed desegregating? What does the record show?

Is he arguing that liberal and Democrat are synonymous? Are there no liberal Republicans?

What a small minded little **** he must be.

Please share with us what you find. Otherwise you are sounding like Fox news.

Well, George Wallace was a democrat. I doubt he'd count as a liberal. I knew a lot of professed Democrats that hate everything on that list. I think they're what is commonly referred to as Reagan-Democrats now....hhmmm.....

Well what tag a person gives themselves is not really the point. And some may view themselves Liberal when they really aren't.

My dad if he were American would have likely voted Republican and like Reagan. Although his reasons would have likey been for the Ron Paul/Arlen Spector reasons. He would have had no problems with gay marriage or the rights of women to choose to have an abortion and he would have been for civil rights, women's rights to vote. So to me he would have been a liberal Republican when Republicans were basically center right.

It's possible I suppose to be a complete racist religious nut and be in the lefty parties - But I can't see them making logical sense. The whole point of being liberal is to let others make their own decisions on their personal lives and have the power of a society held by the society and not a few rich individuals. A kind of Spock philosophy - the good of the many outweight the good of the few or the one. Still with an eye on protecting the good of the one whenever poassible. Racists don't view other races as people though so it is easier to not include them in liberal ideals. After all Hitler genuinely had the good of the people in mind with his actions - but he only considered healthy Arians as people.

All that said - it is always important not to base a party or argument on the views of afew individuals. For instance if 100 Democrats vote for Civil rights and 5 don't you can't just look at the 5. Conversely if 5 Republicans voted for it and 100 said no - you can't look at just the exceptions. Especially without knowing the specific reasons why they went against the party line.

I lived in Wenzhou, China - this is Republican/Capitalism central - this is the Republican ideal of what Capitalism ought to be. In fact if you vote Republican and own a business you should move to Wenzhou. You can run a business with no government interference (a few bribes to the Red Party officials is all that is required).

Advantages
There are no unions to worry about
No pension plans to pay
No safety regulations
No pollution regulation
Full discretion hiring/firing
No maternity leaves - just fire them if they get pregnant
and you can pay them anything you want

Every company gets to operate like that which is why all the American big companies moved in and opened shop.

Just don't live there - hire managers to run it for you. It's a wonderful place if breathing clean air, drinking water from a tap, seeing garbage everywhere, and making sure you don't step in pee are things that don;t concern you.

After all since no one pays tax there is no money for things like road repairs, cleaning the water, having a board of clean air, etc etc etc. That kind of stuff needs money - money comes from taxes.

So Wenzhou is a giant toilet bowl of a city - and not just any toilet bowl - a toilet bowl after a 400lb guy ate 15lbs of seafood pasta that was off. That is what capitalism and rublicans want.

But hey - on the flip side - there are more billionaires and millionaires in Wenzhou 30,000 of them - not bad. Pretty cool seeing all the Hummers and Porches everywhere - driving over bad roads and you can't roll the window down unless you like smelling pee but the guy has a cool car.

I'm a conservative, but have lots of liberal friends. I think that we can post lots of positive and negative things that both groups have done. Let me give a few examples:

Conservative negative for Bush, Jr: Started war in Iraq. Took out the leading regional power to counter Iran; and for what--because they MIGHT have WMD. Oh please.

Liberal negative for Oboma: Treating veterans as as a discardable commodity. The nation called these men and women to serve, now there need is over and he's going to kick them out into a lousy economy, with no training except for how to kill people and destroy things. As a veteran myself, I find this incredibly offensive.

Second Liberal negative (sorry, I'm conservative and so I'm lopsided ): Having an attitude that we did great things in the past, therefor, whatever we do now must be right. For example, I'm reading Booker T. Washington's book now "Up from Slavery". I challenge all you liberals to read this book. There is such a kind tone in his book. He describes how after the slaves were freed: how they felt no bitterness towards there former masters; how when they formed there first black school how the entire community got such an excitement that even the 75 year old people wanted to learn how to read the Bible before they died; etc. From this book comes forth a man and race that is exhilarated about freedom and has an incredible desire to contribute to the common good. In other words, it describes a man (and as he says in the book 'my race') that is destined for greatness.

My point, is that from these pages is projected: a noble man, and noble race. Now compare this to the race relations that you hear in the media. There is such anger and blame shifting. I think that Liberals have shifted this debate to one of 'symbols not substance'.

Finally, please read the book: "The closing of the American mind". I think this is what Liberal's have brought as well. [end of soap box]

So Wenzhou is a giant toilet bowl of a city - and not just any toilet bowl - a toilet bowl after a 400lb guy ate 15lbs of seafood pasta that was off. That is what capitalism and rublicans want.

But hey - on the flip side - there are more billionaires and millionaires in Wenzhou 30,000 of them - not bad. Pretty cool seeing all the Hummers and Porches everywhere - driving over bad roads and you can't roll the window down unless you like smelling pee but the guy has a cool car.

I'm in complete agreement until you said: "That is what capitalism and Republicans want." I think that these sorts of demonizing the other side does little to help bring about compromise.

Stanley, I don't think that RGA is completely off suggesting that those conditions are the residue of runaway capitalism. After all, a great deal of American companies moved their manufacturing there for a reason, something that happened during the Reaganomic '80s.

Stanley, I don't think that RGA is completely off suggesting that those conditions are the residue of runaway capitalism. After all, a great deal of American companies moved their manufacturing there for a reason, something that happened during the Reaganomic '80s.

I agree with he runaway capitalism comment. I have been in China twice, each for 3 weeks when I adopted my youngest two children. I would not want my dog to breath that air. After three weeks: my lungs hurt, eyes hurt, thought hurt.

But, my point, is that the demonization of each side does little--except to energize your base. I believe:

Liberals: They truly want to help people and want to move their agenda forward.

Conservatives: They truly want to help people and want to move their agenda forward.

Just because a Liberal wants to downsize the military, it doesn't mean that they want weak national defense. They love there country but have a different priority. Same with Conservatives.

I think that it is safe to say that without Liberals, this country would: still have slavery, would have a horrible environment, have no child labor laws, etc.

Likewise, without conservatives: we would be bankrupt, tax businesses so much they would flee overseas, and be a nation of whiners and complainers.

So, which one do I want? Neither.

I think the American public is becoming more uneducated, so that they are more influenced by the intensity of the debate and not the substance.

I agree with he runaway capitalism comment. I have been in China twice, each for 3 weeks when I adopted my youngest two children. I would not want my dog to breath that air. After three weeks: my lungs hurt, eyes hurt, thought hurt.

But, my point, is that the demonization of each side does little--except to energize your base. I believe:

Liberals: They truly want to help people and want to move their agenda forward.

Conservatives: They truly want to help people and want to move their agenda forward.

Just because a Liberal wants to downsize the military, it doesn't mean that they want weak national defense. They love there country but have a different priority. Same with Conservatives.

I think that it is safe to say that without Liberals, this country would: still have slavery, would have a horrible environment, have no child labor laws, etc.

Likewise, without conservatives: we would be bankrupt, tax businesses so much they would flee overseas, and be a nation of whiners and complainers.

So, which one do I want? Neither.

I think the American public is becoming more uneducated, so that they are more influenced by the intensity of the debate and not the substance.

Best Regards,
Stan

Nicely said, but middle of the roaders seem to get lumped in with conservatives for some reason.

WARNING! - The Surgeon General has determined that, time spent listening to music is not deducted from one's lifespan.

US politics is in a sorry state. Probably simplistic, but I think there are basically three causes: (1) excessive checks & balance built into the system, including recently the 60 vote rule in the Senate, and (2) tough times when opinion tends to be polarized, and (3) the increasing ability of money to buy influence through lobbying, and campaign funding, the latter recently including the PACs, SuperPACs, and the right of corporations to fund these without limit and secretly.

Liberal vs. Conservative is definitely simplistic, given that there are at least two dimensions for both: economic and social. On the present-day Conservative side at least, you could add the religous vs. secular.

Personally I'm a lot close to the Liberal perspective, but I hesitate define myself a Liberal. On the economic side I'd rather call myself "left-leaning": I believe in regulated capitalism with government involvement in reglation and, N.B., macroeconomic "demand management"; (see Wikipedia). If you don't think demand management works, see Ronald Reagan: it wasn't his tax policies that save the US from recession in the '80s, (contrary to myth), it was his demand stimutlation via military spending.

Corporate capitalism is a problem whatever one votes or calls themselves - The Canadian documentary "The Corporation" is revealing as tot he power America has given to corporations and the first problem was viewing them as people under the law but having no way to punish them - power corrupts absolutely when the person/corporation can do anything without any reprisals whatsoever except fines (which are slap on the wrists).

Conservatives generally vote to protect these entities with the view that they create jobs and wealth - they don't (not for the regular middle class anyway). They create wealth for their owners. And until conservatives figure this basic issue out they unfortunately have to take the blame for the results - the American economy is very much the fault o this failing.

Veterans in the U.S. have been poorly cared for under every president because the system isn't about care but about offense. There is no reason the American military needs to be so big. It self perpetuates a lot of its problems and intense Anti-Americanism that was created under W Bush to the point that Americans were wearing Canadian flags on their arms when traveling overseas so they would not get spit on or outright attacked. And this was in countries like South Korea (friends) and Europe (friends). That largely went away with Obama and didn't exist with Clinton. Right or wrong the rest of the world views Republicans are religious nutwings who want to start wars under false flag ops or lies. And you can't blame the rest of the world for looking at them that way when they have a mountain of evidence of lies and deceit and corruption. The "you're with us or against us" view is very much the same as the religious view - you're Christian or you're going to hell in an endless existence of torture and pain.

Democratic parties generally protect "democracy" - it's simple enough it's even in the name. Spreading democracy overseas by the way is "imperialism" - it is not the job of America to tell countries what to do - the people of those companies need to rise up and have their own revolutions. And sure if the people rise up and they need help to defeat the tyranny then you decide to go to their aid - as in Libya.

I think the other thing is to consider what a president is left with when he takes over and factor in the overall success based on what is reasonable for what he can do. He did as promised - pulled out of Iraq and even killed the "evil doer" that Americans so wanted killed - you know the guy who was responsible for 9/11 - Bin Laden. he didn't blame it on the wrong guy in the wrong country - helps when you read books and know something about things called "issues" and "world events" outside Texas.

People laugh at Bush but he did get voted in (sort of) and it is more telling about the kind of minds that voted for that Deliverance gun happy reject.

...
Conservatives generally vote to protect these entities {corporations} with the view that they create jobs and wealth - they don't (not for the regular middle class anyway). They create wealth for their owners. And until conservatives figure this basic issue out they unfortunately have to take the blame for the results - the American economy is very much the fault o this failing.
...

Informed insight is up against the myth of the perfection of laisser-faire capitalism. Certainly Adam Smith would agree the capitalism is far from perfect today, but the self-interested sell, and the ignorant buy, the myth.

The so-called "job creators" aren't aren't doing it today in the US (or Canada) because they very justifyably fear that consumers here won't have money to buy their products. The notion that they're just waiting for lower taxes or less regulation is utterly bogus. What the NA economies lack is demand. In fairness to corporations and business in general, it isn't their job to create demand -- it's the government's job.

Originally Posted by RGA

...
Democratic parties generally protect "democracy" - it's simple enough it's even in the name. Spreading democracy overseas by the way is "imperialism" - it is not the job of America to tell countries what to do - the people of those companies need to rise up and have their own revolutions. And sure if the people rise up and they need help to defeat the tyranny then you decide to go to their aid - as in Libya.
....

It is likely that the recently freed Arab countries, (Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt), will tend to elect more or less moderate Islamic parties such as the Islamic Brotherhood. Much and all though I loath religion-based politics, the US and western countries are just going to have to suck it up.

IMO, the Christian Right is much greater threat to the US than any of the Islamic parties -- even including al-Quaeda (apart from them getting nuclear weapons). Read Chris Hedges' book, American Fascists for some perspective on this.